No, that’s the nadir of stupidity. This is not a branding as you uncharitably describe it like a piece of property. Baptism is a sacrament that washes away “original sin” it does not guarantee a permanent state of grace. One simply does not have to go through this ritual if one leaves the faith and then decides to return. This is the teaching of the early Church fathers. This is not the branding you have in either Buddhism or pantheistic religions where creatures are born as men or serpents or fish or fowl according to their prior births.
What is uncharitable is your contempt towards a genuine expression of understanding about the faith.
And the true nadir of stupidity is simply proceeding, even upon being reminded up the subject, to double down on refusing to address the issue of free will.
But don't worry, what elsewhere is intellectual dishonesty is, within the church, "faithfulness."
So, your "dedicated anarchist" author was baptized as a Southern Baptist years before he poped. How is it, then, that he can convert to Roman Catholicism and his Southern Baptist baptism isn't binding on him? Baptized a Southern Baptist, always a Southern Baptist...isn't that what infant baptized Roman Catholics who leave are constantly told here? The only difference is he at least gave his consent to be baptized as a statement of his faith rather than it being done to him while he was but a little baby.